Teams keeping project logs should record the following information:

Teams keeping project logs should record the following information:

September 13, 2004  Permalink  Comments (0)
Plan for Observations
Students will work in small groups during the lesson. Each observer will focus on one group. See observation protocol. Observers should attend to:
Types of Evidence
Evidence will consist of
Contact: Bill Cerbin
Previous Logs: Step 1  Step 2  Step 3 
November 15, 2004  Permalink  Comments (0)
Evidence to be collected:
We will collect the "digital posters" from the students. These will be graded, and either samples projected, or if time permits, all posters will be projected in class.
Pre and posttests will be given, with both multiple choice and free response answers. Tests will include both theoretical and applied questions.
Eventually a Student Assessment of Learning Gain will also be included.
Lesson Study participants will also sit in on the lecture and observe student engagement.
Contact: Scott Cooper
Previous Logs: Step 1  Step 2  Step 3
January 21, 2005  Permalink  Comments (0)
The observers looked for:
Contacts: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Previous Logs: 1  2  3
March 31, 2005  Permalink  Comments (0)
In an attempt to quantify evidence of student learning, our Lesson Study Project developed a pre and post test for students who discussed the materials in a classroom setting in which the lesson was taught in the way it is normally taught and for students who learned in the revised classroom setting. If the instrument can adequately measure understanding, we should be able to see a difference in the outcomes of the pre and posttests in the two classroom settings.
Please find the instrument below.
The results are presented in the following manner. The variables Control_pre and Control_post are the results of six questions on the topic of free trade. The “Control” indicates that the tests were performed on a class without the “LSP” treatment. This class was taught without the LSP enhancements, or the way that we usually treat trade in an introductory microeconomics course. The variables Treated_pre and Treated_post are totals from the same test given to the treated class, which was based on the LSP curriculum developed by the Microeconomics team.
Looking at basic averages of the pre and post totals as well as the difference in the pre and post values, it is clear that nontreatment class (the nonLSP curriculum) improved the most.
Control_pre Control_post Control_Difference Treated _Pre Treated _Post Treated _Difference
Mean 2.2195 5.0930 2.9767 2.3714 2.4857 0.1143
Standard Deviation 1.2147 1.2876 1.8707 1.2531 1.5203 1.7981
The following results are from a simple regression using the posttest results from both the control and the treated results aggregated as the dependent variable. Independent or predictor variables included the pretest results and a dummy variable for the treatment group (treatment = 1). You will note that the treatment itself had a significant negative effect on the posttest result.
Regression with robust standard errors Number of obs = 112
F( 2, 109) = 48.01
Prob > F = 0.0000
Rsquared = 0.4427
Root MSE = 1.444

 Robust
post  Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval]
+
pre  .1028293 .1098087 0.94 0.351 .114808 .3204667
treatment  2.630579 .27074 9.72 0.000 3.167177 2.093981
_cons  4.872441 .327238 14.89 0.000 4.223866 5.521016

One cannot conclude from these results, however, that the nonLSP lesson is necessarily better. It is possible that this instrument is too blunt to measure what was learned with the LSP curriculum. The instrument itself was developed under the original curriculum, and may not be adequate for the LSP curriculum.
In addition to the quantitative measure, we also had observers present in three of the lessonstudyproject lessons during the spring semester of 2004. We have transcribed three of the observation sessions (see attached).
Contact: Lisa Giddings
Previous Logs: 1  2  3
May 02, 2005  Permalink  Comments (2)
1. What kinds of evidence will be collected?
A pretest and posttest on interpreting confidence intervals will be given and collected from each student. The pre and post quiz is presented below.
PreQuiz: Confidence Interval Interpretation Name ________________________
Put a check in the box preceding the correct interpretation of the confidence interval for the mean.
Confidence Interval: ($1,835, $2,691)
With 95% confidence, the average income tax refund for Wisconsin households is between $1,835 and $2,691.
The probability that the average income tax refund for Wisconsin households falls between $1,835 and $2,691 is 0.95.
95% of all households in Wisconsin will have an average income tax refund between $1,835 and $2,691.
MTH 145: Introductory Statistics
PostQuiz: Confidence Interval Interpretation Name ________________________
Put a check in the box preceding the correct interpretation of the confidence interval for the mean.
Confidence Interval: (8.3 minutes, 16.7 minutes)
90% of all airplanes at Chicago?s O?Hare International Airport take between 8.3 and 16.7 minutes to taxi from the gate to the runway.
We can be 90% sure that airplanes at Chicago?s O?Hare International Airport take between 8.3 and 16.7 minutes to taxi from the gate to the runway, on average.
There is a 90% chance that the mean taxi time for airplanes at Chicago?s O?Hare International Airport falls between 8.3 and 16.7 minutes.
2. What aspects of teacher and student activity should observers focus on?
Our initial lesson study plan did not have enough discussion time to allow for enough observable student activity. That is, there was not enough student discussion time for us to observe student comments/discussion of the interpretation of confidence interval. We were not able to observe students? ability to carry out the computation in the construction of a confidence interval (which is generally not the difficult portion of understanding confidence intervals).
Contact: Brooke Fridley
Previous Log: 1  2  3
May 31, 2005  Permalink  Comments (0)
Recent Comments